Customer Discussions > religion discussion forum

All-loving, all-merciful Christian God discriminates against the handicapped


Sort: Oldest first | Newest first
Showing 1-25 of 214 posts in this discussion
In reply to an earlier post on 25 Feb 2013 11:06:38 GMT
Actually, Sneed, the obvious answer is 'what a load of nonsense' you spout!

You clearly have not read Leviticus 21, nor the whole of the book of Leviticus, nor any of the gospels before displaying such a huge level of ignorance.

In reply to an earlier post on 25 Feb 2013 09:46:35 GMT
C. A. Small says:
DB- you seem to have forgotten the works of Japan, Hitler, and the christians in the Americas, I wonder why? Oh yes- you are dishonest.

BTW as far as I know, Mao and Pol Pot were buddhists.

In reply to an earlier post on 25 Feb 2013 08:28:21 GMT
Bellatori says:
Well done Diane... a great cop out.

the whole point of the Black Death and Noahs flood is that the latter was at the hands of a Divine punisher and the former at the hands of the 'Divine creator'

I could have gone for the slaughter by bears of the lads who called Elisha 'baldy' or the creation of any number of diseases.

What you have failed to answer is why, given your Gods propensity for killing, why you think this Deity worthy of worship.

Posted on 25 Feb 2013 07:23:49 GMT
Spin says:
The OT can be traced back to the both ancient egyptian and Mesoptamian religious myth and doctrine. The OT is the culmination of the beliefs of two major powers in the region.

Posted on 25 Feb 2013 00:34:17 GMT
J. Forbes says:
DB, I am sorry you deleted your reply to my post before I had a chance to read it. What were you ashamed of?

In reply to an earlier post on 24 Feb 2013 23:45:44 GMT
richard says:
DB,

the M&S post was my feeble attempt at humour and i'm surprised that you would see it as a reflection of my seriousness regarding discussion. however i've tried genuine discussion with you before and as a result have little more than a passing interest in your posts and little hope for any meaningful discussion from them.

In reply to an earlier post on 24 Feb 2013 23:38:27 GMT
DB says:
[Customers don't think this post adds to the discussion. Show post anyway. Show all unhelpful posts.]

In reply to an earlier post on 24 Feb 2013 23:36:20 GMT
[Deleted by the author on 24 Feb 2013 23:36:52 GMT]

In reply to an earlier post on 24 Feb 2013 23:33:00 GMT
richard says:
and you could always depend on the quality of M&S underwear not to let you down as well!

In reply to an earlier post on 24 Feb 2013 23:28:33 GMT
J. Forbes says:
Don't you think that it conflicts with Jesus's teachings, DB? An eye for an eye, and smiting thine enemies and all that. It's a long way from turning the other cheek.

Richard is probably right. Jesus did a wonderful job taking a well-known, but tired, brand, and completely changing people's perceptions of it. Of course, they tried the same thing with Marks and Spencer, but weren't so successful. Perhaps because Mr Marks doesn't read the NT.

In reply to an earlier post on 24 Feb 2013 23:27:57 GMT
richard says:
DB,

yes i have absolutely no problem at all with understanding the OT as a collection of writings covering a long period of time in the history of the Israelites and presenting that history from a religious perspective incorporating myths passed down to the writers from earlier sources. i think it does give us a great insight into the Israelites as well as their neighbours and those they had dealings with. it's an invaluable source of reference for what was happening in the Canaanite area as well as Syria and Egypt for the time period 2000 BCE through to about 500 BCE i think. it tells the story of nomadic groups settling down and establishing kingdoms. fascinating stuff! when i look at the OT i see the religion contained within it as created by those people (and adopted from others) and not to represent any actual knowledge or interaction with any god. i can accept the religious accounts as fiction even if the writers were sincere in their belief that they were writing the truth which was most likely the case in much of it. however for a follower of the Abrahamic god the accounts in the OT present something of a problem. are the accounts true of what Yahweh did and did the various prophets really commune with god and relay his words and wants?

so i think i get it just fine but then i don't have to try and explain the actions of the OT god!

In reply to an earlier post on 24 Feb 2013 23:01:34 GMT
DB says:
[Customers don't think this post adds to the discussion. Show post anyway. Show all unhelpful posts.]

In reply to an earlier post on 24 Feb 2013 22:52:33 GMT
richard says:
i really do wonder. in hind sight it might seem better to have dropped it as heresy . having to reason the god of the OT with the 'loving father' of the NT has been nothing other than problematic for it's theology. i think part of the problem was needing creditability that could only come from a long established god and Judaism gave the orthodox Christians that. i think it was also too early to separate Jesus from his Jewish roots and his teachings from Jewish scripture. i do like the early attempt to make Yahweh a god of the earth and not the supreme god of Jesus. that might have been a good way forward but would not have given the Christian god the pedigree they needed.

In reply to an earlier post on 24 Feb 2013 22:43:05 GMT
Norm Deplume says:
But Diane, I was not asking questions about the OT, I was asking about your attitude to it. Now I know. Thank you.

In reply to an earlier post on 24 Feb 2013 22:40:29 GMT
Pendragon says:
Tired?

I don't need to ask the Jews about the OT, although I am grateful for the suggestion.

It may be the history of the Jews.

But it is your god also. Or are you saying it's not?

In reply to an earlier post on 24 Feb 2013 22:17:00 GMT
DB says:
[Customers don't think this post adds to the discussion. Show post anyway. Show all unhelpful posts.]

Posted on 24 Feb 2013 22:04:09 GMT
J. Forbes says:
I wonder why the fathers of the church saw fit to include the OT in the Holy Bible. I had always supposed that it was in some way relevant. Background material, and all that. But perhaps it was just a massive joke to put atheists off the scent.

Those early fathers! Eh? Humourists, the lot of 'em.

In reply to an earlier post on 24 Feb 2013 22:01:10 GMT
richard says:
yes the OT very much contains the ancient history of the Jews from a religious perspective. their God is Yahweh and Jesus was a Jew and his teachings were based on the Scriptures as they existed and were known in his time. their 'history' presents the history of their dealings with Yahweh, the same god that the Christians accept as theirs so isn't the history of their god the same as the history of the Christian god? well at least up to the point where Christians start to believe that Jesus is god at which point they split apart!

In reply to an earlier post on 24 Feb 2013 21:54:24 GMT
Norm Deplume says:
Diane,

What did you mean by "ask the Jews, it's their history after all"? The implication (which I indicated as tentative by a question mark) was that the OT was irrelevant to *your* religion. If it is not then why do you avoid discussing it?

In reply to an earlier post on 24 Feb 2013 21:47:44 GMT
DB says:
[Customers don't think this post adds to the discussion. Show post anyway. Show all unhelpful posts.]

In reply to an earlier post on 24 Feb 2013 21:45:35 GMT
richard says:
nooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo please don't start the 'where did the water come from' question because that will only lead to 'where did all the water go' and you really don't want a mouth full of beer when you read the answer to that one!

In reply to an earlier post on 24 Feb 2013 21:44:01 GMT
Norm Deplume says:
Diane,

The OT is not relevant to your beliefs? Where does your god first appear then?

In reply to an earlier post on 24 Feb 2013 21:36:27 GMT
DB says:
[Customers don't think this post adds to the discussion. Show post anyway. Show all unhelpful posts.]

In reply to an earlier post on 24 Feb 2013 21:27:42 GMT
Pendragon says:
JF

Indeed. In fact "a depth of more than fifteen cubits" above Everest.

Think of the length of a water slide from that height! Thorpe Water Park eat your heart out.

Exaggeration? Not possible. Moses wrote it. You may have heard of him.

In reply to an earlier post on 24 Feb 2013 21:23:55 GMT
Pendragon says:
Diane

"if i had done that i would have been accused of avoiding the question". Quite probably! ;)
But at any rate it seems you accept the explanation. How could you not?

"I'm sure Bellatori will accept this answer from you."
How so sure? Bellatori may not know me. And in any event he may disagree. Why break the habit of this disputatious thread?
‹ Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next ›
[Add comment]
Add your own message to the discussion
To insert a product link use the format: [[ASIN:ASIN product-title]] (What's this?)
Prompts for sign-in
 


 

This discussion

Discussion in:  religion discussion forum
Participants:  27
Total posts:  214
Initial post:  16 Feb 2013
Latest post:  25 Feb 2013

New! Receive e-mail when new posts are made.
Tracked by 1 customer

Search Customer Discussions